CCMinutes - 04/14/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor remarked that passing the item did not mean it was thrown out ~forever," only that it was not a priority at this time. Ms. Solomon reminded councilors that this item did not only address service districts, but also encompassed service provision. She advocated for allowing the flexibility in the planning schedule to look at service provision. Mr. Coyle said, due to past decisions, the special district issue was embedded in the Land Use Code and would make the item work-intensive to change should that time come. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend the discussion by ten minutes. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Nathanson commented that she was unconcerned that the item would affect service provision. Mr. Meisner voiced his support for the motion. He thought it would in no way preclude staff finding efficiencies in City services. He noted that previous items having to do with special service districts ~went nowhere" and had taken staff time. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to raise Item 39, which would prioritize investi- gation of an alternate path review process parallel to the prescriptive code, to a high prior- ity. Mr. Kelly said this was in response to the recent closure of a ~doggy daycare" facility. He wished to provide a more flexible way for such a business to be established through the Land Use Code. He noted it had been a council directive to give this a high priority after LUCU was completed. Mr. Meisner expressed support for the motion. He encouraged staff to look into how other cities handled such items and save themselves some work. Mr. Coyle affirmed, in response to Mr. Pap~, that the Planning Division had the resources to address Item 39 should it be given a high priority. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman asked, regarding Item 5(d), what other major projects were being approved should the list be approved. Mr. Coyle responded that this would acknowledge the consultative work that Planning Division would do with the Development Division. Ms. Bettman asked if this would cover projects given a high priority by the City Council. Mr. Coyle replied that any project having to do with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site or siting a new hospital would be given highest consideration by staff. He said the aim would be to be able to answer any questions regarding a property such as the EWEB property, but not to expend resources to assist with the development of the property. He noted, regarding the latter, that he would have to return to the City Manager for direction in such a situation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 5 Work Session